Alex Knapp's article in last week's Tech News, "Why I refuse to vote for Ralph Nader," paints a false portrait of Nader and his supporters. Rather than attacking Nader's stance on the issues, he attempts to destroy Nader's character, at times resorting to outright lies.
The first paragraph begins, "Somehow, someway, it has become the ultimate sign of cool to admit that you want to vote for Ralph Nader." This is untrue. The majority of Nader supporters, as with supporters of any third party candidate, tend to be more informed on the issues. These people need to do research because the mainstream media doesn't deliver information on their candidates. Please, I beg you, do not vote for anyone because you think it is the cool thing to do. Vote for the candidate whose beliefs most closely match yours.
First on Knapp's list of reasons not to vote for Nader is "The Green Party Platform is a Socialist Platform." To my surprise, since this article was printed, several people here at WPI have come up to me or other Nader supporters and said something to the effect of "How can you support Nader? He's a communist." I'm not sure if this confusion is related to Knapp's article or not, but Nader is neither a Socialist nor a Communist. Socialism is a system in which government controls industry and capital. Communism is a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership.
Ralph Nader and the Green Party support community-based economics. They realize that a sustainable economic system is essential for maintaining a healthy ecological balance; they feel we must prevent economics from taking priority over the environment. They support independently owned and operated companies that are socially responsible, and public enterprises that spread out resources and control to the working people.
Knapp also adds that he doesn't know how the Green Party intends to pay for its programs. That's a reasonable concern, but if he had spent any time researching the situation, he could have found out the answers. First, Nader will stop plans for the expensive, problem-ridden national defense system. He also intends to reduce military spending to provide more resources for civilian needs now that the Cold War has ended. Also, the Green Party wants to end corporate welfare. Corporations no longer pay their fair share of the tax burden. When corporations want to move into our cities, they expect tax breaks. When corporations go broke, they go to Washington to get bailed out. Ending these abuses will create another source of billions of dollars that can be put to better use.
The second reason on Knapp's list is "Ralph Nader is a union buster." Knapp claims that editors for Multinational Monitor were fired because they attempted to form a union. I can't seem to find a credible source to back this up. If we take a look at the facts, the
claim seems more and more ridiculous. All of Nader's employees make at least ten dollars an hour, and receive health insurance and paid sick-leave. Nader supports a repeal of the Taft-Hartly act, a law which makes it difficult for workers to organize unions and collectively bargain. Most importantly, Nader is endorsed by several unions, including the United Electrical Workers and the California Nurses Association.
Reason three reads, "Ralph Nader is a millionaire hypocrite." Similarly, number four reads, "Ralph Nader is an Investment Hypocrite." Nader's investments have made millions, but Nader himself lives off of only $20,000/yr. He has, in fact, lived in the same studio apartment for decades and doesn't even have a car. As to his Cisco stock, the Federal Trade Commission has investigated Cisco and exonerated them. Unlike Microsoft, they are not involved in tie-in sales and intellectual property issues and do not have a monopoly over any part of the market. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong or hypocritical about having money.
Recently, Business Week asked Nader, "Does your crusading have the potential to hurt your investments?" His response was "Who cares? What we need in this country is conflict against your interests. Not conflict of interest. Where you do something because it's the right thing to do, even though it damages your financial interests. I grew up that way. My father ran a restaurant. And he was outspoken politically. And once in a while, someone would come in and say, 'Mr. Nader, don't you know this is going to hurt your business? Because if you disagree with someone in politics, they're not going to want to come and buy a sandwich.' You know what he said to them? He said, 'Let me tell you my friend, when I sailed past the Statue of Liberty in 1912, I took it seriously.' And it did hurt his business."
Knapp's final reason for rejecting Nader is "Ralph Nader is an Angry Man." Knapp immediately asks, "Does this seem like a silly reason not to vote for someone?" Frankly, yes, it does. Having been to the Nader Rally in Boston and having watched him speak multiple times, I can say that he is no less than inspirational. He isn't a perfectly polished politician. He is a genuine representative of real people's concerns. City after city, he's been drawing 10-15 thousand people together to hear his message. If you haven't heard him speak, you wouldn't know. His entire campaign is run from individual contributions. Unlike the two major parties, he obeys campaign finance laws and accepts no corporate money. As for his ability to "pull together coalition in Congress," Nader is responsible for getting more legislation passed than Gore and Bush combined. I don't
think pulling together coalitions will be a problem.
Indeed, the only angry man out there is you, Alex Knapp.